pbrisgreat

You’re a Cyclist Who Was Just Struck by a Car Driver. Here’s Why It Was Your Fault

https://midwest.social/post/2070142

You’re a Cyclist Who Was Just Struck by a Car Driver. Here’s Why It Was Your Fault - midwest.social

McSweeney’s bringing some hard truths with this one. We could all be doing better. >You forgot to go back in time and tell people that subsidizing the oil industry might be a bad idea. When the oil and auto industries teamed up to bend public policy to their will, making a system of roads and parking lots that now function as a continuous subsidy and magnificent symbol of the normalization of injury and pollution, you had a lot of options. You could have objected. You could have shifted public opinion. Instead, you weren’t even born yet. And, rather than go back in time, all you’ve been doing is riding to get groceries and occasionally saying, “Please stop killing us.” On the effort scale? 1/10.

Aug 14, 2023 at 8:15pmWeb
Show threadxantoxisAug 14, 2023
Only 66% of drivers commit moving violations? Every instance of speeding is a moving violation, I think that number should be more like 90%.
Show threadCaptainEffortAug 14, 2023

*99%

I mean really, who doesn’t speed even a little?

Show threadxantoxisAug 14, 2023

Meh–old people. People who don’t drive very often and are afraid of cars. There are definitely people who drive carefully and timidly because they just don’t trust the car or the traffic they’re in.

But not too many. Aggressive driving and speeding are the norm.

Show threaddnickAug 14, 2023
Reasonably sure anyone who doesn’t speed because they are afraid of driving is committing driving violations left right and center out of timidity rather than speeding.
Show threadLeviathanAug 16, 2023
Yeah those are THE most dangerous people on the road. They hesitate and make things very unpredictable. Driver predictability, I would say, is a huge part of how I don’t end up a red stain on the road on the daily.
Show threadGorkAug 16, 2023

I agree. Being safe means being predictable and going with the flow, even if it means speeding a little to match the relative velocities of the cars around you. Being predictable is better than being right.

Turn signal indicator at least a full second before switching lanes or changing directions, braking at a constant deceleration when stopping, not cutting off other drivers or tailgating, and giving yourself a good amount of space behind the vehicle in front of you is all super important.

Show threadAesthesiaphiliaAug 17, 2023

Oh man I saw a wreck just a week ago, right in front of me, because some moron decided to come to a FULL STOP on a freeway on-ramp, turn their blinker on, wait until there were literally no cars in the entire freeway, then scurry over across all lanes into the far left lane and start doing 30mph

Guess who came up behind them doing 65mph?

Guess who panicked and swerved directly in front of them?

The shitty thing is, because it's technically a rear-end, there's a good chance the driver doing everything right will be found at fault.

Show threadheavybootsAug 14, 2023
Cannot upvote this enough…
Show threadUriel238 [all pronouns]Aug 14, 2023
When I was riding, I actually found by night it was better to make myself as invisible as possible and assume cars could not see me, since when I went out bright and shiny they were unpredictable and more dangerous.
Show threadHeartyBeastAug 14, 2023
As a daily cyclist - and as a motorist, please don't do this. Being invisible at night on a bike is a bad idea.
Show threadspitfireAug 14, 2023
And this is the kind of ideas motorists (as you describe it) have to face every day🤦🤦‍♀️
Show threadbrewbellyblueberryAug 14, 2023
I’m from a country where we have no fucking sunlight half the year, and seriously, reflectors etc are a must and we have halfway decent infrastructure for biking. So many people injure and cripple themselves or get killed, just because a driver couldn’t see them. Remember, a ton of drivers are not just assholes, they’re idiots. Half of them are on the phone or doing shit on their phone or focusing on anything other than driving. It’s no more noble to die by an idiot than an asshole.
Show threadUriel238 [all pronouns]Aug 15, 2023

Well the alternative is to be lit up and at the mercy of motorists who don’t know how to share the street. As I said, it was more typical they’d drive erratically near me when I had lights and reflectors up than when I was shrouded.

Maybe when we automate our cars so they’re not dependent on human beings, it might be safe to be near them.

Show threadHeartyBeastAug 15, 2023

I don’t know where you live, but cycling in London on a daily basis for a commute, I don’t commonly see the kind of driver aggression you describe.

I absolutely do come across cyclists with no lights/reflectors, wearing dark clothes that aren’t visible until the last moment- and it is all to imaginable how they could be part of an accident with car - or pedestrian

Show threadUriel238 [all pronouns]Aug 15, 2023

I lived in San Francisco until 2015. (I got pushed out due to gentrification, and ceased biking at all after the epidemic lockdown of 2020.) It’s possible I just bicycled quieter routes. Here in California, those exiting vehicles into traffic know to open their doors slowly, lest they lose doors and limbs to high-speed motor traffic. I’ve never hit someone – or near-missed, for that matter – exiting a vehicle.

I have been run off the road from lingering in blind spots but my reflectors weren’t a factor in those cases. San Franciscans are not great at consistent turn signaling.

I’m in Sacramento, now, and yes, the drivers are less aggressive here, but I haven’t been cycling at all, yet, let alone cycling in traffic. I can’t speak for London drivers, and would probably adjust my cycling habits accordingly if I were to move there. But in San Francisco, cyclists are infamously not well liked, either by motorists, law enforcement or city hall, though there are now more bike lanes, and The Wiggle is now a recognized route.

Show threadAesthesiaphiliaAug 17, 2023

Well,

  • SF cyclists are entitled douchebag tech bros. Just unlikeable as people. Cycling (or at least, being vocal about your cycling) seems to attract the worst kinds of people.

  • No one is targeting cyclists. That's not a thing. It's a persecution complex dreamed up because: see above.

  • SF Bay drivers are some of the worst in the country. No, you're not being targeted by the person running you off the road. They just do that. All the time. To everyone.

    • Show threadBidensGranddaughter [none/use name]Aug 14, 2023

    This tracks, there’s actually some evidence that drivers behave more dangerously around cyclists wearing helmets.

    Scientists should study carbrains more, and try to understand why cyclists trying to protect themselves seems to attract drivers like moths to a flame.

    Drivers Give Riders Wearing Helmets Less Room on the Road

    Findings from this newest study add another layer to the complex topic.

    Bicycling
    Show threadUlyssesT [he/him]Aug 14, 2023

    Ever been in the car with an actual ?

    Their road rage ignites the moment they see a cyclist, especially if somehow the cyclist looks gaaaaay to them.

    Show threadAesthesiaphiliaAug 14, 2023
    Yeah that's not a thing. 100% persecution complex.
    Show threadBidensGranddaughter [none/use name]Aug 14, 2023
    I found the most effective, consistent method of triggering into a blind rage is to simply smile and give them a thumbs up. I actually had to stop doing it because one guy sped up so much to beat me to the next red light, he first very nearly hit me on the way and then had to slam on his breaks so hard he lost traction and almost spun out - all this in the middle of a city intersection with narrow roads, no less.
    Show threadUlyssesT [he/him]Aug 15, 2023

    I wonder if it’s something about appearing content and happy while they are bound by all the contradictions and inconveniences of owning a car, especially in a city.

    You may be on to something.

    On a similar trip with a driving, the was rambling about how much he hated “the wife” and how men are always miserable when they are married and other tier misogynist bullshit.

    I responded that I loved my wife, and said so with in a non-confrontational exceptional way to his claim that every man must be unhappy when married.

    He got so enraged he swerved and almost hit something.

    Show threadsadrealityAug 14, 2023
    Auto and oil created a country where you pretty much have to be upper income to live in a few high income cities where no car life is possible but you got to pay top dollar for it.
    Show threadBorgDroneAug 14, 2023
    If a car hits a pedestrian or cyclist, the car is always legally at fault. At least here in the Netherlands. Is this not the case everywhere?
    Show threadThecornershopAug 14, 2023

    That would be amazing, but unfortunately not the case in many places, including Australia where instead a bike rider that gets hit by a car gets told that it is too difficult to prove blame on the driver, even when there is clear video evidence and third part witness statements saying the the driver intentionally rammed the rider.

    Don’t ask me how I know…

    Show threadqueermunist she/herAug 14, 2023
    In Iowa they just acquitted a man for driving into protesters blocking traffic.
    Show threadTigrisMorteAug 15, 2023
    Was that the one that posted ahead of time that they were going to do so?
    Show threadqueermunist she/herAug 15, 2023

    Different guy.

    This guy used his wife and child as eye witness testimony to prove he did nothing wrong when he drove into the crowd.

    How long before they start selling pedestrian shields to drivers so they don’t dent their vehicles when running us over?

    Show threadNouveau_BurnswickAug 15, 2023

    90 years ago.

    bloomberg.com/…/why-didn-t-this-1930s-cow-catcher…

    Why Didn't This 1930s Cow-Catcher For Pedestrians Ever Catch On?

    This is what passed for road safety 80 years ago.

    Bloomberg
    Show threaddaviAug 14, 2023
    what matters most is who can afford expensive lawyers and if they cost enough; it doesn’t matter whose legally at fault.
    Show threadThordros [he/him, comrade/them]Aug 14, 2023
    Oh lord, no. Drivers are rarely held accountable for murdering cyclists. The “accountability” usually caps out at weekends in jail, picking up some garbage on the highway, and being real real sorry.
    Show threadAesthesiaphiliaAug 17, 2023
    Depends on how rich you are.
    Show threadVeraxusAug 14, 2023
    Your mistake is assuming that places like the US are as rational, practical, just, and/or civilized as the Netherlands.
    Show threadpbrisgreatAug 14, 2023

    If you want a good sense of how bad it is in the states here are two episodes of Freakomomics that do a job of exposing the issue.

    “The Perfect Crime”: freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime/ (From 2014)

    Then a follow-up episode: “Why Is the U.S. So Good at Killing Pedestrians?”: freakonomics.com/…/why-is-the-u-s-so-good-at-kill… (from July 2023)

    The Perfect Crime - Freakonomics

    The Perfect Crime - Freakonomics

    Freakonomics
    Show threadAdeptfuckupAug 15, 2023
    Not here in the US. There’s so much victim blaming. The victim always being a pedestrian. Not the asshole driving on a walk path.
    Show threadSLfgbAug 15, 2023
    not in Australia
    Show threadKalashAug 15, 2023
    God I hope not, that would be really stupid.
    Show threadBorgDroneAug 15, 2023
    Cyclists and pedestrians are more vulnerable, the law is there because drivers have a duty to be extra careful around them.
    Show threadKalashAug 15, 2023
    Yeah the part I have a problem is, is where you’re automatially at fault even when you were careful and did nothing wrong.
    Show threadSwingingTheLampAug 15, 2023

    It’s a concept called “strict liability,” which is well-established in U.S. law, we just don’t apply it to cars. The idea is that when you knowingly engage in an activity which is inherently dangerous, you have to accept liability for any consequences, even if you did nothing wrong. The example that sticks with me from an ag law class was the organic farm that sued a crop-dusting company when an unexpected wind caused pesticide to drift onto their land. The organic farm won. The court found no negligence by the crop-duster, but held that it was a case of strict liability. The act of putting pesticide in the air simply carries that risk, and liability with it.

    The Netherlands is just saying that hitting a vulnerable road user is a risk of driving, even if it’s not your fault. It is your responsibility to factor that in when making the decision to drive. Framed that way, I think it makes more sense: Don’t blame the person hit for the driver’s decision to drive a car.

    Show threadAesthesiaphiliaAug 17, 2023

    In most places in the US we have pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles all mashed together in close proximity. Statistically, there will be people killed by drivers who did nothing wrong.

    Hell, there will be people killed by drivers because the pedestrian/cyclist did something stupid like run into traffic.

    This law would cause a lot of harm to innocent people and I'm glad we don't have it.

    Show threadSwingingTheLampAug 24, 2023

    Oh man, this is old, but it didn’t pop up as a notification in my app.

    Anyway, I think we should apply strict liability standards to driving, like the Netherlands does, and here’s why:

    First, it’s a concept that applies to torts in civil courts, not criminal courts. Nobody would be going to jail for something not their fault. The remedy in tort law is usually monetary damages, so briefly, it would at worst cause insurance rates to go up.

    The higher insurance rates would apply more to bigger, heavier, taller vehicles which do more damage to vulnerable road users. That would put a downward pressure on the size of vehicles, which protects everybody.

    And, as I see it, nobody is blameless in a collision. Wisconsin (and many other states) has a “modified comparative negligence” system, which assigns damages in court based on each party’s percentage of fault. It assigns a certain, low percentage of blame to each party in a collision just for being on the road. So, by that same principal, choosing to drive a vehicle per se assigns fault to the driver. In the case of hitting a vulnerable road user, that decision is almost solely responsible for the severity of the other person’s injuries. It might’ve been their fault, but crushed bones is not a fair and just consequence for a moment of inattention by a kid.

    To avoid rambling on longer, the upshot is that I’d trade higher insurance rates for saving children’s lives.

    Show threadNouveau_BurnswickAug 15, 2023

    How did you do nothing wrong if you hit a pedestrian/cyclist?

    Anywhere you can drive fast enough to not stop in time should be protected highway, where there is no risk of pedestrians or bicycles.

    Show threadKalashAug 15, 2023

    As someone that is a pure pedestrian (tram/trains otherwise), cyclists (and rarer but even worse, people on e-scooters) are much more of a personal menace to me than cars.

    There is a predestian traffic light accross a street with 2 dedicated bike lanes, that I have to cross everyday. And I’ve seen a fair amount of near misses there, mostly caused by reckless cyclists that disregarded traffic rules and common sense.

    In fact I’d say a good bit more than half of cyclists do not think the traffic light applies to them. If there see no one crossing, most cyclist will just run the light. This basically happens daily. I sometimes shout after them, but meh.

    And in one extreme case, a cylist, still a good bit off from the traffic light, saw it was about to turn red abd took that opportunity to cross the road himself. So he just turned left, right into traffic to cross the road. That car next to him hardly manage to brake in time, there was tire noises. Really good reaction by the driver.

    It maybe a rare case, but had he hit that cyclist, I don’t think it would be fair to blame the driver. He did something incredibly stupid.

    Show threadNouveau_BurnswickAug 15, 2023

    I’m sorry that you have such horrible cyclists on your area.

    I do agree that you presented scenario the cyclists would be at fault. But the driver would still be at fault also, it is their job to not hit anything in an intersection, regardless of lights and indicators. The driver being able to stop shows that they were driving appropriately.

    Show threadKalashAug 15, 2023

    Well, luckily this time they didn’t. And I do know this is the anti-car sub and I’m not trying to be anti-bike at all. But there as a pedestrian from my expirence, I’d like to see numberplates on bikes.

    Like on the same intersection, if there is a truck stopped and I cross, I’ll stop and check the bike lane … because I don’t trust the red light with them.

    I’m sorry that you have such horrible cyclists on your area.

    But it’s not just here. Even back in Germany I had trouble with it. Maybe I’m being a Bünzli, but there was a mixed predestian/cyclist lane and in Germany you have 2 very similar signs that designate how the lanes are used. If there is a horinzal line between the predestian and cylist, it’s mixed. If the line is vertical, there are 2 separately marked pathes for each lane. Couldn’t be easier, right?

    Well, the city decided to pave the of this “mixed lane” with two different colours of bricks that basically painted two lanes. A reddish one and a usual, “stone coloured” one. Grey I guess. Anyway.

    At more than one occation I was just walking by with a couple of people on this path, that basically is just randomly coloured for no reason … when a cyclist speeds by, yelling that we’re blocking that bike path.

    And they are gone to fast, so you can’t even yell back “there is no bike path, learn to read the fucking traffic signs”.

    Another problem might be that there really is no mandatory traffic education when buying a bike. Everyone just get’s to have one. That might not be that smart in the long run.

    Show threadNouveau_BurnswickAug 15, 2023

    Absolutely, and I’m not trying to minimize your frustrations with cyclists either. I’ve been hit by cyclists numerous times, thankfully I’m big, so it normally just ends up with a confused cyclists on the pavement. Someone smaller than we would not be so lucky.

    My observations on cycling design are :

  • The wider the cycle lane, the less dangerous and fewer conflicts their are.

  • It should be easier for the cyclists to transfer to car traffic and back than pediatrician traffic. This way a cyclist deciding to pass has to make a decision that could hurt themselves rather than someone else.

  • Like a vehicle hitting a ped/cyc is always the cars fault, a cyc hitting a ped is always the bicycles fault.

    • When I say bicycle there, I’m referring to all the wheeled dangers.

    The biggest upside I see it that people are oblivious assholes in cars or on bicycles, so at least bikes are slightly safer. Now that I think of it, there are oblivious assholes pedestrians too, I’m talking to you group of 6 walking abreast the entire sidewalk!

    Show threadKalashAug 15, 2023
    You are right and I’m definitly venting a lot of personal and anecdotal frustration here. Thank you for being so rational about it.
    Show threadWalrusDragonOnABikeAug 16, 2023

    And in one extreme case, a cylist, still a good bit off from the traffic light, saw it was about to turn red abd took that opportunity to cross the road himself. So he just turned left, right into traffic to cross the road. That car next to him hardly manage to brake in time, there was tire noises. Really good reaction by the driver.

    Really confused by the description here (no clue what side of the road you are driving on, not sure why the cars are moving when the light is red, or why the car beside a bike needs to brake the avoid hitting the cyclist). But two main things: as a pedestrian, I don't see how this is relevant to you. The car is always wrong principle should also apply to peds hit by cyclists: the cyclist is always wrong.

    Also someone who regularly drives and recently had a person random step sideways into the middle of the road (no intersection) right in front of me the other week, I think me stopping in time is just basic reaction someone should have. If your car can't do that and you aren't expecting people to do that, you are failing what should be the most basic of requirements to be allowed to drive a car. If I had hit them, it would have been my fault imo.

    Show threadAesthesiaphiliaAug 17, 2023

    So a cyclist darting out in front of oncoming traffic bears no responsibility if they get hit?

    The scenario they're talking about is in a 4-way intersection. Imagine you're driving straight through an intersection; you have a green light, everything is fine. Then out of nowhere on your right side a cyclist zips by in front of you. You have 0.3 seconds to see them and apply the brake and have your car stop. That's not always feasible.

    Show threadWalrusDragonOnABikeAug 18, 2023

    still a good bit off from the traffic light, saw it was about to turn red

    It was about to turn red for the cyclist. Meaning it was red for the cars. Or it just turned green and they should still be going <20mph. If you can't stop when someone runs a light that just turned red for them, then you're not prepare for what cars regularly do, and they sometimes do it at 60mph, giving you even less reaction time.

    Show threadAesthesiaphiliaAug 18, 2023

    It was about to turn red for the cyclist. Meaning it was red for the cars.

    In most of the US, there's no separate lights for cyclists.

    In any case, you're missing that the cyclist did the equivalent of coming from an adjacent lane to cut off cars next to him. No car can anticipate that, from a cyclist or from another car.

    Show threadWalrusDragonOnABikeAug 18, 2023

    In most of the US, there's no separate lights for cyclists.
    Exactly. Which is why the light must have been red for the cars.

    In any case, you're missing that the cyclist did the equivalent of coming from an adjacent lane to cut off cars next to him. No car can anticipate that, from a cyclist or from another car.

    Yes you can? How else would you drive without getting in a wreck most days? That's happens to you at least on a weekly basis if you drive regularly here on the interstates. I've never hit them. Generally you can read when people want to get over if you pay attention. Cyclists are even easier to read since they're not in a box with tinted windows. I've had a few times I've hit my breaks before one has even turned their head to avoid collisions (on my bike) because I could tell they were gonna suddenly turn. I would say without warning, but given I could tell they were, that wouldn't be entirely accurate: they just gave no intentional signals and those not paying attention will easily miss the intent (unfortunately, the person right in front of me did collide with the person suddenly turning in front of them in one of those cases).

    If you can't tell most of the time, you aren't paying attention.

    Show threadAesthesiaphiliaAug 18, 2023

    How else would you drive without getting in a wreck most days?

    ...what? Have you ever driven before? This behavior causes wrecks ALL THE TIME, it's probably the #1 cause of wrecks. It's definitely one of the most dangerous things a driver can do. Same applies to cyclists.

    Show threadWalrusDragonOnABikeAug 15, 2023
    Seems pretty unlikely. If yours actually being a reasonable driver, even if someone suddenly steps out into the road without warning right in front of you, you won't hit them. The only exception would be if they were doing something like hiding behind a sign at night and jumped out in front of you. Almost anything else and you actually weren't driving carefully.
    Show threadKalashAug 15, 2023
    I gave an example in a comment below. The driver just rolled out, expecting to stop smoothly at a red light when he had to make a really serious emergency brake and it did work out. Barley. I just don’t think you can just assign blame in such a general way.
    Show threadAesthesiaphiliaAug 17, 2023
    If you're going at a slow speed maybe. A lot of cyclist infrastructure is next to roads with speeds of 40, 50, 60 mph.
    Show threadFeydaikinAug 16, 2023
    I think it is a general standart in europe. But I can’t speak towards the americas or asia.
    Show threadPolymathAug 14, 2023

    Thank goodness this reads, at least to me, as largely satire. But then again Poe's Law is certainly a thing.

    I have been hit twice by motorists/cars while road cycling, and will die on the hill that US motorists are entitled asses, too self-absorbed to care that, LEGALLY, on just about any roadway bicycles are allowed to take up one entire lane, as a full-fledged vehicle.

    Drivers can piss off and cry, that the whole world isn't cars like the auto manufacturer lobby and oil magnates/giants have tried to force us all to become dependent upon and addicted to.

    Poe's law - Wikipedia

    Show threaddnickAug 14, 2023
    Well it kind of has to be satire, since it’s suggesting time travel as the shortcoming, but yeah, it is ridiculous how little care motorists pay to cycles. On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of cyclists acting just as entitled, blowing through signs and pedestrian crossing as though they have the same rights as a car, but for in situations where it’s more convenient, as though they don’t have to obey the same rules. And, of course, the situations where they are completely in the right, but so outmatched by tons of steel that being right only matters to their family in court. Operators of cars and bikes can both be distracted or make a mistake, but only one of them is likely to face life ending consequences in an interaction between the two of them.
    Show threadPolymathAug 16, 2023
    I've definitely run into my fair share of folks like that, and to a degree I think they infuriated me even more than just-car drivers, since they were making us cyclists look bad as a whole; giving reasons to motorists to hate us all. I totally hear you, and thank you for your thoughts that are right on, about the discrepancy in consequences